Consistency in The Negative Result Values Through Expansion of null's Role

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 03:09:34 PDT 2012


Le 16/08/2012 03:11, Erik Reppen a écrit :
> Well I went a bit long as I tend to when geeking out on stuff but I 
> think the topic of how these elements of the language could be used 
> better moving forward if we're stuck with 'em is interesting. I really 
> do find it's helpful in debug to have different ways of saying 'fail.'
>
> With these new JIT interpreters moving as fast as they are, I wonder 
> if it wouldn't be completely ridiculous to eventually attempt to 
> handle multiple versions of JS.
>
> It seems like handling multiple HTML doctypes became completely 
> unworkable for a lot of reasons I've only started to understand, 
> however, so I'm not sure how naive of an idea that is.
>
> What I love about JS is that anything you don't like, you can bend 
> fold, mutilate, and warp into a shape that you do. That's why I'm a 
> bit puzzled by the popularity of the compile-down approaches.
You technically can change the shape of the JS environment mostly as you 
wish, but most of the time, you "socially" can't.
It has become the social norm to not touch the environment so that 
scripts from different sources can "safely" coexist within the same 
webpage. The only socially accepted exception is polyfills, because they 
implement a standard feature and so are indistinguishable from a native 
environment.

At the end of the day, very few people actually change the JS 
environment to make it as they wish mostly because most people use other 
people code which has expectations over the JS environment (I think it's 
probably as much true for node.js because of modules).

Compile-down allows to start fresh with social conventions.

David


More information about the es-discuss mailing list